Told ya so – more upside down data in Mann's latest paper

So here’s the question, the press release below mentions sediments. Place your bets now on whether the Tiljander sediment series remains inverted or not.

Peer review doesn’t seem to catch the problem of using inverted data. That’s a good question for science and the peer reviewers. I suggest those who have contact put the question to them, because the results will look different when the data is used properly. In case anyone doubts this. The inversion was confirmed by the principal researcher that gathered the data, Tiljander, who confirmed this in an email to Steve McIntyre. – Anthony

I had a quick look at the paper, SI, and the code. What seems to be done this time is that the proxy network of Mann et al (2008) is processed with a slightly modified screening of Mann et al (2008), and then the reconstruction is done with a slightly modified RegEM CFR of Mann et al (2007)! Now to answer the question that seems to be on everyone’s lips: yes, Tiljander series are still used as inverted. This can be seen from the positive screening correlation values reported in the file 1209proxynames.xls. In fact, going quickly through the screening code, it seemed to me that they have really “moved on” from the screening employed in Mann et al (2008): only “two-sided test” is used!

%% replacing "abs(z(4,i))>=0.165"/"abs(z(5,i))>=0.513" in line 75/84 with the followings for your expected proxy-network

%% abs(z(4,i))>=0 / abs(z(5,i))>=0 (full proxy-network)

%% abs(z(4,i))>=0.162 / abs(z(5,i))>=0.496 (screening over 1850-1995)

%% abs(z(6,i))>=0.195 / abs(z(7,i))>=0.602 (screening over 1896-1995)

%--

This means that if a proxy has a strong inverted correlation to the (two-pick?) local temperature, it gets picked – no matter what the physical interpretation is! Since RegEM doesn’t care about the sign, it is now really so that the sign does not matter to them anymore. Anything goes!

So if I understand you correctly, what they do is look for any proxy with a high correlation, whether it be positive or negative, and they put it into the reconstruction upside if it has a negative correlation, without feeling the need to explain why it’s negatively correlated physically. This is madness…plain and simple.
I don’t even know how you fight something like this when you can do the crappiest science imaginable and your reviewers don’t even care as long as you come to the “correct’ conclusion but if you do good science that proves them wrong in the slightest, you get ignored.

Mann doesn’t have to be honest – he can still claim to be a scientist, one that furthers ‘post-normal’ science, which according to Prof. Mike Hulme of UEA, and contributor to the IPCC, is what climate change and the IPCC process is all about now. This all comes from a concept by the radical, J.R. Ravetz.
Philosopher Jerome R. Ravetz introduced the concept of ‘post-normal’ science, which is not the good, old-fashioned science that seeks truth. While we are angry that scientists have been cooking the books, our outrage and response is according to ‘normal science’, which Ravetz and Hulme consider ‘obsolete’. Ravetz and this new breed of ‘scientists’ are on a different track – one with a lust for political control. Ravetz, drawing on neo-Marxism, showed them the way. He said:
” …the puzzle-solving approach of ‘normal science’ is obsolete. This is a drastic cultural change for science, which many scientists will find difficult to accept. But there is no turning back…For us, quality is a replacement for truth in our methodology. We argue that this is quite enough for doing science, and that truth is a category with symbolic importance, which itself is historically and culturally conditioned.”
Here’s what he says about climate models, and the deception necessary to produce them:
“…climate change models are a form of “seduction”…advocates of the models…recruit possible supporters, and then keep them on board when the inadequacy of the models becomes apparent. This is what is understood as “seduction”; but it should be observed that the process may well be directed even more to the modelers themselves, to maintain their own sense of worth in the face of disillusioning experience…but if they are not predictors, then what on earth are they? The models can be rescued only by being explained as having a metaphorical function, designed to teach us about ourselves and our perspectives under the guise of describing or predicting the future states of the planet…A general recognition of models as metaphors will not come easily. As metaphors, computer models are too subtle…for easy detection. And those who created them may well have been prevented…from being aware of their essential character.”
More here: http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/climate-change-and-the-death-of-science

To all of those AGW scientists out there:
When you have to fake your data, when you have to censor your critics, and when you have to lie in order to prove your theory, you aren’t practicing science, you are perpetuating a fraud.

Mann has published it before the emails leak showing Kaufman privately having second thoughts on Tiljander, and before Kaufman corrigendum on Tiljander (publishing delays). Not sure all his co-authors would let him wreck the train by including Tiljander, had they known it’s upside down in time.

Isn’t the Tiljander series even more problematic? Besides being used upside down, the series was considered by the original authors to not be valid for temperatures as it neared present times because of bridge construction, etc. ?REPLY: Yes that’s correct. So much sediment was stirred up that the last years were considered useless. – Anthony

“quality is a replacement for truth”
That is a…words fail me…an *amazing* sentiment. Rather like the “new math” and other post-modern educational experiments, his suggestion of “post-normal” science is incredibly harmful – allowing virtually any sort of abuse that can be dreamt up and subjectively justified.

Obviously, MM didn’t know that the inversion of the data was known, nor did he know that the scientist who logged the data verified that it was used in inverted fashion, either that, or he has the arrogance to believe that by rediscovering the “Medieval Climate Anomaly [sic]”, he can deflect all criticism away from previous dross.

Whilst I do not endorse inverting the series, it’s a fact that if series correlate, the sign is unimportant. You just assign a negative coefficient. But I do not trust Mann to do objective science, he has too much invested in it.REPLY: the issue is that Mann has known about this for some time, and had plenty of opportunity to correct this in the paper beforehand. – Anthony

Thank you, Jean S for your work. How much harder would it be to write a comment to Science on your findings?
ScientistforTruth: and yet they hide behind the peer-review process, which is, of course, “normal science.” I’m not familiar with Ravetz, but it sounds like simply more deconstructionist claptrap. He’s describing and trying to legitimize the kind of science that allows for Mann’s trick and “hide the decline.” In this view, Science isn’t science, it’s literary metaphor manipulated for affect.

So what exactly happened here? I’m guessing Mann’s paper was already in the pipeline (to generate the maximum amount of pre-Copenhagen hysteria) when Climategate exploded. At that point, it’s either withdraw the paper, which would be seen as an obvious reaction to having the data and methods publicly exposed, or muddle on and hope the damage control by MSM and high-level friends in government was effective enough to keep things they way they’ve always been.
The timing on this is precious!!

CRU Leaked Documents.
[snip]
REPLY: “Sophistry in politics” aka “Politicians cost lives” No and hell no to any new comments from you. You proceeded to post bomb multiple threads here multiple times even after I told you the content you were pushing on your website was not welcome.
Hell you are doing it right now, multiple posts under difference names.
Coming back later and saying “we have not seen eye to eye” while at the same time engaging in post bombing time insults my intelligence and the intelligence of readers here when what was called for was an apology.
Bugger off!
– Anthony

When someone is hallucinating or delusional about certain fixations, like hockey sticks, I thought the general pracitce is to get that person medical help.
Mann, as an employee of a progressive highly reputable institution with great HR benefits, should really take advantage of modern medical assistance ASAP.
Ray,
I think you are confusing the magic that is at the basis of Mann’s work with science.

This sentence I wrote above was rushed: “In this view, Science isn’t science, it’s literary metaphor manipulated for affect.”
Here’s what I actually meant:
“In this view, science isn’t science as a quest for truth, it’s fiction in which you can deploy all the attendant literary devices like metaphor and hyperbole to enhance the narrative.”
It has no doubt never occurred to Mr. Ravetz that post-normal in this case is actually abnormal.

ScientistForTruth, I am flabbergasted by the philosopher Jerome Ravetz. Stunned. I won’t pretend I can understand all of the above information about Tiljander and the upside down graphs at first reading but I know what science is meant to be about. Truth is the goal. Quality instead of truth? Truth is the quality of science. I’m a nurse in an ICU and I can’t begin to imagine the troubles our patients would be in if we didn’t have accurate data. If we started to use quality numbers we liked for our patients’ pathology results rather than the truth there would be death and chaos all around…
A mate of mine works in the science dept of a major Aussie university, one which has superb AGW credentials. Over the last year or so I’ve given him info about the bad science going on with AGW and he’s been tolerant of my views. The latest revelations of fraud etc have made him think twice. As a holder of a science degree and a lover of science even he concedes that fraudulent use of data is not not to be tolerated. I have a minor win on my side but I’m yet to win the battle on that front. I shall battle on to convince him, slowly but surely!

Where is Erasmus when we need him. His work (never officially signed by him but ascribed to him) “Julius Exclusis” is a classic. We need somebody to do a “Gore, Mann, Jones et. alia Exclusis” as to what happens when these guys die and show up trying to get into heaven.

Those graphs serve to confirm my earlier guess that Mann would produce … “a warped and twisted hockey stick, proving once again that we are experiencing unprecedented warmth.”
It’s déjà vue all over again.

Ray (10:15:15) :
We knew of the two branches of Science: Pure and Applied Sciences. We will now need to add a new branch the “Anything Goes Science” or “Twaddle Science”… any other names come to mind?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
How about Ecneics and Erutan — science and nature spelled backwards. I would also add Setutitsorp.
Bob

“NC (10:07:27) :
Does Science and Nature have the same publisher as the National Enquirer, just asking? I maybe belittling the National Enquirer”
Along the lines of JamieLee Curtis saying to Kevin Kline…”Otto…to call you stupid is an insult to stupid people everywhere.”
It’s pretty amazing that in this day of electronic “instant-on” communication, the publishing industry is still so old-fashioned and behind the times that they couldn’t stop the presses on this awhile ago when the upside-down discovery was first made and brought to light here.
Now they look “more dumber”…
JimB

threadjacking in progress (sorry!):
much of what george monbiot has written in the guardian the past few days has apparently been scrubbed from the site. and for those entries that remain, the comments section has been scrubbed. the current entry apparently has the comment section turned off. too much truth telling going on, i guess.REPLY: Be careful with this, might just be a browser problem or PEBKAC somebody else reported something similar a couple of days ago, turned out to be PEBKAC. – Anthony

I have heard Jerry Ravetz speak and he is quite convincing. I bought his little book on post normal science, expecting to rip it to bits, but it is very hard to do so. My heart says I disagree with him, but my head found it difficult to develop reasoned arguments. This will be important in where we go next with science. We can’t just say we are speechless about post-normal science.
Not that that has anything to do with what has been going on with The Team, of course. They are a discredit to any phrase with science in it.

Twaddle Science
New Science?
Fraud is closer to the truth. I’m impressed with all this – I compiled an Index on Censorship report into gagging pressures in science, pressures to conform, or ignore outliers. That was “Big Science and Little White Lies” 1999:3. We found exactly this kind of behaviour – including bullying and coercing journal editors, demanding consensus in order to gain tenure etc, but on such a tiny scale compared with this. I spent months looking at scientific scandals – nothing was this big. This is astonishing, and the *impact* of the fraud has been collossal.
I’m not speechless. I don’t get speechless. But I am stunned.
How did they think they could get away with it?

For some of the story behind the story, seehttp://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1011&filename=1252164302.txt
Apparently one problem was the ease of using data that seems to fit. This is one of the ways papers get published showing too much warming. If the data didn’t fit, then it’s more likely to be tossed as obviously defective.
A good scientist is skeptical of his own data….
Excerpts from the Email:From: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Darrell Kaufman <Darrell.Kaufman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Nick McKay <nmckay@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Caspar Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, David Schneider <dschneid@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, “Bette L. Otto-Bliesner” <ottobli@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Raymond Bradley <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Miller Giff <gmiller@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Bo Vinther <bo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Arctic2k update?
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2009 11:25:02 -0700Cc: <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
D et al – Please write all emails as though they will be made public.
I would not rush and I would not respond to any of them until the best strategy is developed – don’t want to waste anyone’s time, including yours or Mc’s.
Be careful, very careful. But now you know why I advocated redoing all the analyses a few months ago – to make sure we got it all right. We knew we’d get this scrutiny.
On 9/5/09 8:44 AM, “Darrell Kaufman” <[1]Darrell.Kaufman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
Regarding the “upside down man”, as Nick’s plot shows, when flipped, the Korttajarvi series has little impact on the overall reconstructions. Also, the series was not included in the calibration. Nonetheless, it’s unfortunate that I flipped the Korttajarvi data. We used the density data as the temperature proxy, as recommended to me by Antii Ojala (co-author of the original work). It’s weakly inversely related to organic matter content. I should have used the inverse of density as the temperature proxy. I probably got confused by the fact that the 20th century shows very high density values and I inadvertently equated that directly with temperature.
I’m also thinking that I should write to Ojala and Tiljander directly to apologize for inadvertently reversing their data.

““quality is a replacement for truth””
In the case of Climate Science as practiced at CRU and by all the Team that phrase could be”
“lack of integrity is a replacement for truth”
“political expediency is a replacement for truth”
“dishonesty is a replacement for truth”
“Keeping our funding Gravy Train rolling is a replacement for truth”

Mann was a co-author of a recent paper E. Crespin et al.(2009): The 15th century Arctic warming,where naturall variation (aka random behaviour) is blamed.
E. Crespin et al.2009: The 15th century Arctic warming Abstract. An ensemble of simulations of the climate of
the past millennium conducted with a three-dimensional climate
model of intermediate complexity are constrained to
follow temperature histories obtained from a recent compilation
of well-calibrated surface temperature proxies using
a simple data assimilation technique. Those simulations
provide a reconstruction of the climate of the Arctic that
is compatible with the model physics, the forcing applied
and the proxy records. Available observational data, proxybased
reconstructions and our model results suggest that the
Arctic climate is characterized by substantial variations in
surface temperature over the past millennium. Though the
most recent decades are likely to be the warmest of the past
millennium, we find evidence for substantial past warming
episodes in the Arctic. In particular, our model reconstructions
show a prominent warm event during the period 1470–
1520. This warm period is likely related to the internal variability
of the climate system, that is the variability present
in the absence of any change in external forcing. We examine
the roles of competing mechanisms that could potentially
produce this anomaly. This study leads us to conclude
that changes in atmospheric circulation, through enhanced
southwesterly winds towards northern Europe, Siberia and
Canada, are likely the main cause of the late 15th/early 16th
century Arctic warming.http://www.clim-past.net/5/389/2009/
Concluding paragraphs
The patterns of surface temperature and sea level pressure
over the years 1470–1520 is somewhat similar to the early
20th century Arctic warm event. The available data indicates
that the winter times in the 1920s were characterized by increased
warm air inflow into Europe, while the Baffin Bay
experienced a cooling. (Overland et al., 2004; Bengtsson et
al., 2004). The pattern of sea level pressure (SLP) anomalies
during this period is comparable with the pattern of the 1470–
1520 warming period obtained in our model reconstructions
(the geopotential height being the closest variable to the SLP
in the model). The early 20th century warm event might thus
not have been unique in the recent past. Furthermore, the
negative anomaly centered over Bering Strait is responsible.

Robinson (09:47:45) :Well, at least we know one thing: Mann has an impeccable sense of comedy timing.
I’m sure the new Mann work was in the pipe before the ClimateGate story broke.
One problem I see with how ClimateGate is being handled in the media is that they don’t know what the emails really mean. Michael Mann, Phil Jones, James Hansen, Kieth Briffa, these are new names to them. We know the impact of the ClimateGate file because we are so familiar with the whole issue. We immediately know what the Mann Hockey Stick is and we are shocked over what Mann did to produce it.
If most of us were in charge of how ClimateGate stories are presented in the media we would add so much more background that viewers would become just as shocked as we are.

NZ Willy (10:09:53) :
“Whilst I do not endorse inverting the series, it’s a fact that if series correlate, the sign is unimportant. You just assign a negative coefficient.”
—
So you are just investigating black boxes and look for correlations? Then on what reasons do you propose to reject correlations such as declining stork populations and birth rates? Your stance is patently absurd.

For those readers who do not fully understand proxies and calibration and regem I will point out one thing that should help you decide whether this is bullshit or not. I want you to imagine that the proxies ( tree rings sediments ice cores etc ) are real thermometers instead of “proxies” OK. Now understand that these “thermometers” are spread out around the globe. There aint that many of them. a couple handsfull. Now, look at the confidence interval back in 500AD. plus or minus .5C. What Mann is claiming is that his reconstruction that uses tree rings, sediments, varves, ice cores can dtermine the Northern hemisphere average to within .5C.
Raise your hand if you believe that a tree ring can record the temperature to within .5C?

“Plato Says (10:53:45) :
Re Monbiot – its still there and has gained another 100ish comments since I looked about 6 hrs ago = up to 983 as of GMT+1”
Has anyone noticed that Ian Plimer has attempted to make at least four comments on Monboit’s blog and all have been deleted. Monboit does not want a real debate.

Gene Nemetz.
One problem I see with how ClimateGate is being handled in the media
In the UK we pretty much have a news blackout on the whole thing. I would guess that 1% of the population have even heard of it. We even had the Queen talking about climate change today no doubt at the request of her idiot son.
I think the scariest thing for me in all this is that the sheer amount of power the NWO people have already amassed. All the mainstream media, youtube hiding the ‘hide the decline’ video by removing it from most viewed as it was getting too popular and was being viewed by ‘young’ people. We don’t want the youngsters to think now do we, They seem to be at a point where they don’t really care at all about the science because most sheeple are so brainwashed that they no longer think much at all.
Maybe we need organised demonstrations (which will not be televised of course) but if people are inconvenienced by a demonstration and then see it missing from the news they may wake up a little.

So does this mean that Mann actually released the code and data that he used to make his reconstruction?
If so, he should be applauded for that, at least. Maybe the team have learned from the problems of the past, and we’ll see more transparency in the future?

The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

“Climategate” hits seem to have dropped off after peaking. They stand at 5,670,000 as of 12:49 PST. Some wonky Google algorithm, no doubt.
But [climategate, treason] hits have more than doubled: going from 8,000 hits to 17,900 hits in one day.

He hello Anthony,
Is there a way we can contribute to youre site? I think you are spending so much time here at helping people understand the issue.
See it as a token of appreciation!
ArnoldReply: Tip jar located on right column, a bit down the page. ~ charles the moderatorReply: 2. Hey Anthony, when are the moderators getting that night out on the town you promised us?

The ‘peers’ (pals) of Mann are simply going to rally around him and pretend he is just a tough player, rough and tough in the name of science.
The oxymoron of ‘boys behaving badly’ has been floated out as an attempt at defense.
Even now, Mann is claiming that he and his pals were speaking in a special language that mere lay people cannot hope to understand.
Please spare the world such bs.
It is time for every group with sophistaction to sue under strong FOIA suits here in the US to force this clown and his clown school alums to come clean.
That this son of a gun was leading us towards insane energy policies and taxes in the name of the trash he dares to call ‘science’ is really annoying.
The goal should be have every bit of work he has ever produced aggressively audited and scrutinized, and to force the withdrawal or repudiation of any and all of his work that shows it was a product of collusive peer review or fudged data.
We should see all work related communicationis. Afterall, we taxpayers financed all of this. We should get to see what our money bought us.
His finances should be equally scrutinized by people who can force his compliance. I will bet good money he has diddled the money like he has diddled the science.
This same process should be applied to Schmidt, Hansen, etc. etc. etc.
these guys wanted us to turn the keys over to them in the name of their ideas.

Craig Moore (12:44:53) :
“I saw the following from President Eisenhower’s farewell address:”
I’ve been maintaining a link to the entire speech because it is incredibly prophetic. Here’s the entire text regarding that:
“Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.”
Remember, this was written in 1960. How do we think that “task of statesmanship” thingy has gone.

Sounds to me like economics:
“True, he has a negative cash flow since several years. But, …
lets take the abs() of his cash flow, will correlate with his expenses pretty much better , and we can valuate his corporate bonds still with a triple-A”.
(from the dark center of Moody’s (or S&P))
Wouldn’t it be so sad and so mad, and too, my sense for dark humor and
sarkasm already somehow exhausted, maybe I would write a short story
a la the movie ‘Mad Max’:
Mad Mann’x
– scene: somewhere in the northern planes (or central europe, if preferred).
– totalview:
– – deep snow, broken trees,
– – exhausted by lack of COO and too low temperature,
– zoom to centerview:
– – a bunch of huts and tents, in the center a woodfire.
– – some little, malnutritioned kids are dancing around the fire,
– – singing:
– – “Don’t turn around,
– – Mad Mann’x may hear y’r sound,
– – don’t create COtw’ee,
– – if you like to be free,
– – don’t make a fire,
– – he’ll make your living dire,
– – don’t be a prick,
– – he has a hockeystick:
– – It can’t be broken,
– – he always has ‘nother token.”
– – After a few more rounds the poor little kids were exhausted,
– -fell onto their knees and sat down around the fire.
and so on and so on.

Good quote, Arn. Reminds me of this one, taken out of context but still valid: “….If we [the UK] fall, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science…” –Winston Churchill, June 18, 1940.
Well, the UK has fallen. The watermelons are in full control, there. Keep America free!
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.” –Churchill

it’s unfortunate that I flipped the Korttajarvi data. We used the density data as the temperature proxy, as recommended to me by Antii Ojala (co-author of the original work). It’s weakly inversely related to organic matter content. I should have used the inverse of density as the temperature proxy. I probably got confused by the fact that the 20th century shows very high density values and I inadvertently equated that directly with temperature.
I’m also thinking that I should write to Ojala and Tiljander directly to apologize for inadvertently reversing their data.

Thanks for posting. If I understand Kauffman’s “confusion”above, if comes about from a momentary lapse in judgement in how to use the Korttajarvi River varves: does increased density of sedimentation below the river imply greater temperature in the 20th century – or less?
Am I correct in my understanding that increased varve density implied heavier precipitation upstream, and hence declining temps? In any case Kauffman evidently forgot to invert them. The response to his e-mail came a day later.
Ric Werme said,

Apparently one problem was the ease of using data that seems to fit. This is one of the ways papers get published showing too much warming. If the data didn’t fit, then it’s more likely to be tossed as obviously defective.

But the corollary to this may also have been true…
Kauffman’s e-mail is one of a string. On Sep 4, 2009, at 5:24 PM, Nick McKay responded:

The Korttajarvi record was oriented in the reconstruction in the way that McIntyre said.
I took a look at the original reference – the temperature proxy we looked at is x-ray
density, which the author interprets to be inversely related to temperature. We had
higher values as warmer in the reconstruction, so it looks to me like we got it wrong,
unless we decided to reinterpret the record which I don’t remember. Darrell, does this
sound right to you?
This dataset is truncated at 1800, so it doesn’t enter the calibration, nor does it
affect the recent warming trend.
The attached plot (same as before) shows the effect of re-orienting the record on the
reconstruction. It doesn’t change any of our major or minor interpretations of course.
Nick
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Nick McKay wrote:
Hi all,
I haven’t checked the original reference for it’s interpretation, but I checked the code
and we did use it in the orientation that he stated. He’s also right that flipping
doesn’t affect any of the conclusions. Actually, flipping it makes it fit in better with
the 1900-year trend.
I’ve attached a plot of the original, and another with Korttajarvi flipped.
Nick

“Stephen Brown (12:56:03) :
@ Stan (12:27:28) :
Both Australia and New Zealand have discovered that their “scientists” have been actively tampering with recorded data. Do you think that Canada is exempt from this phenomenon?”
It’s even worse when OZ CSIRO scientists just use Club of Rome data on AGW/CC and rubber stamp it claiming it was right with their own version of play the climate computer game.

Ok, fine, here we are. So, Penn State needs to be 1: made aware of the fact that Mann is still using inverted data, 2: asked how this was allowed to reach publication when it had been already well known in the scientific community that Mann had previously used these series with the data inverted and 3. asked how these results can be refuted in a public manner now that the paper has been published so that other researchers who might cite this paper know that it used data inverted from the actual data to reach its conclusion.
Now it probably doesn’t matter because I believe it has been shown that Mann’s math returns the same result no matter what you feed it so the inverted data might make no difference. I believe his math produces a hockey stick if you feed it white noise. As long as everyone is clear on that point, I believe that is all that matters. The point being that everyone needs to be clear on that point and that requires a very public statement.

A new word for our vocabulary:
“ClimaTautology”
(n) The practice of relating every extreme weather event to Climate Change, in order to create fear and/or secure funding.
“ClimaTautologist”
(n) A practitioner of ClimaTautology.
Tautology [in Logic]:
a. a compound propositional form all of whose instances are true, as “A or not A.”
b. an instance of such a form, as “This candidate will win or will not win.”

Mann can’t publish a paper with Tiljander in the correct orientation, as that will be admission of an error on his behalf and would contradict his statements about the sign not mattering.
Interesting how the MWP is in the process of a make-over, an anomaly, to me, means an oddity or something wrong.

“ClimaTautology”
Easy to allow to happen when “peer review” is reduced to little more than spell checking and looking for grammatical errors. It appears that the science of certain people is beyond reproach and can not be questioned without risking one’s career or the publisher risking their “prestige”.
Yet again, another example of the the “beer-reviewed” media doing a better fact checking job than the “peer-reviewed” media.

Mike (11:25:07) :
My “stance”, as you put it, is just routine mathematics. Storks don’t come into it, rather it is Bayesian expectation of what is a relevant influence. Once Mann (or whoever) decides sediment density (or whatever) is relevant, then you clap it on and calculate the regression coeficients in tandem with the other contributors. Mathematically, once you do you the multiple regression, it makes no difference at all whether any of the factors were upside-down — because its coefficient will come out the same, just with the opposite sign (positive or negative). This is not a “stance” — it’s just math. Mann is right about this in terms of formal decidability.
I don’t want to defend Mann because I think his thesis is wrong, but right is right. I’ve done plenty of multiple regression myself (I am a published amateur scientist), and it really makes no difference which way you hold them. Darn.

Jean S, can you tell me this:
Has Mann released all data and all code required to produce his results? I have been challenging the BBC to investigate this, as they wrote an article about this study (4-5 days after climategate arrived) without mentioning any caveats!

NZ Willy (14:12:58) :
“I don’t want to defend Mann because I think his thesis is wrong, but right is right. I’ve done plenty of multiple regression myself (I am a published amateur scientist), and it really makes no difference which way you hold them. Darn.”
This is one of the most perplexing statistical elements to me as a layman. If signs make no difference, how is a positive or negative trend established? Would this imply that if temps were declining by 10C per decade that the sign makes no difference and that we would be showing massive increases in warming? Please help the unwashed masses understand.

Steve S. (11:06:39) :
“I’d like to know where in the IPCC/AGW movement is there clean and reliable science?
There must be some components which are untainted.”
If it was possible to remove a component and still retain function the IPCC would have done so before the greens woke up to the theoretical possibility.
There is no Q in “Team”. There is no R2 ditto. There is no Y in “Team”. If you don’t play ball there will be no U in “Team”. U don’t want that because…
There are a virtually limitless number of G’s in “Team”http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/climatechange/2009/06/the_unpredictable_weather.html
What happens to a BBC employee if they get toward the edge of the reservation…http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/climatechange/richard_cable/
Yet the guy with no wedding vegetables is still “editing” Wikipedia.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DSC_1150-w-smile.JPG
There is no(t yet) justice.
We do, however, have steven mosher (11:57:23) :
Utterly wonderful Steven. Thank you.

We knew of the two branches of Science: Pure and Applied Sciences. We will now need to add a new branch the “Anything Goes Science” or “Twaddle Science”… any other names come to mind?
I had a prof in college who called this sort of thing “just-so” science, which I find quite apt.

Arn Riewe (14:55:55)
As I said, if you hold the input data upside-down, then the output coefficient is the opposite sign (positive or negative) to what it would have been. But the result is harder to explain to a lay audience. It is the same if you say “lower density wood implies a higher temperature” or “higher density wood implies a lower temperature”. If your output graph has temperature in an ascending scale, then you prefer to say the first of these because it is straightforward. But it is equally valid to say the second. But no hockey stick for me.

I see they turned off comments on the RC web site regarding the IPCC document with new hockeys stick and strangely old Arctic sea ice extent data (the make a big point in the photo of the 2007 extent minimum):
“Comments are now turned off. Unfortunately, the comments are now running about 10:1 insults and innuendo. Serious discussion seems to have largely died off. The last couple of posters did raise some reasonable questions, and I will respond to them after Thanksgiving. Meanwhile happy Thanksgiving to all the American readers (and to everyone else, for that matter).–Eric”
Gee why do you think this is, Eric? Could it be people finally getting tired of the fraud and deception? I sincerely hope this crew gets called up to account by Inhofe very soon. Preferably before Copenhagen, but I guess that is a little too optimistic.

Hans Erren (14:32:16) :If Steve McIntyre wasn’t peer reviewer, then it’s worthless.
Are you serious?
Which peers? The same one peer-reviewing the ClimateGate scientists?
But you weren’t serious in the first place, right?

“Which peers?”
Forget peers. It should be reviewed by stats experts.
Tell me, when climatologists, glaciolocgists, any kind of scientists, study stats at University, do they have professors who are climatologists, any kind of scientists, teaching other than professors from departments named other than “mathematics” or “statistics?”

It has finally penatrated my thick head. The “Mann” computer aigorithm always outputs the “hockey stick” chart. The data input is not an important part of the formula, it’s just noise to give texture to the chart line.

Climategate Foretold…
“• What is the current scientific consensus on the conclusions reached by Drs. Mann, Bradley and Hughes? [Referring to the hockey stick propagated in UN IPCC 2001 by Michael Mann.]
Ans: Based on the literature we have reviewed, there is no overarching consensus on MBH98/99. As analyzed in our social network, there is a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately believe in their thesis. However, our perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.”
AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE ‘HOCKEY STICK’ GLOBAL CLIMATE RECONSTRUCTION, also known as The Wegman report was authored by Edward J. Wegman, George Mason University, David W. Scott, Rice University, and Yasmin H. Said, The Johns Hopkins University with the contributions of John T. Rigsby, III, Naval Surface Warfare Center, and Denise M. Reeves, MITRE Corporation.

To all the experts on this site and climate audit:
First of all, let me thank for what you’ve done and are doing to let the truth be known about Mann made global warming and expose what is surely less than even psuedo-science.
WRT to the issue of this page, we lay people have no clue what you’re all talking about other than something is upside down. In order to help us understand why its important is possible to do an A – B comparison of the incorrect graph (A=up sidedown & B=right side up) so we can see what difference Mann’s “mistake” actually makes as well as explaining in simple English what is the issue and quantify for what the real impact it has on the results (ex. exaggerated recent warming by 40%, or shrank the MWP temperatures by 50%, or both, etc.)
Because according to a leaked e-mail quoted in this comment over on ClimateAudit (under the copy of the article over there), it seems that being upside down in this case doesn’t affect the results very much in this case (although I’m just guessing based on the name of the series being the same as the poster mentions)http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7855#comment-367203
The more we lay people understand, the more knowledgeable (rather than merely trusting) supporters you’ll have and the less we can be taken in by the MSM.
Thx in advance.

> Ray (10:15:15) :
> We knew of the two branches of Science: Pure and Applied Sciences. We will
> now need to add a new branch the “Anything Goes Science” or “Twaddle
> Science”… any other names come to mind?
Political Science (sorry pol-sci majors, AGW’s taken the cake on this term)
Democratic Science (take a vote and go with the consensus)
Con-Science (as in lacking a conscience)
Tabloid Science (since it seems National Enquirer et al have expanded their offerings)

ScientistForTruth (09:51:26) :
Mann doesn’t have to be honest – he can still claim to be a scientist, one that furthers ‘post-normal’ science, which according to Prof. Mike Hulme of UEA, and contributor to the IPCC, is what climate change and the IPCC process is all about now. This all comes from a concept by the radical, J.R. Ravetz.
I took part in a few seminars with Jerry Ravetz back in the day. He’s a subtle thinker. Used to sit on bio-science ethics committees. People shouldn’t misunderstand the context of ScientistForTruth’s comment. When he says ‘post-normal’ science comes from a concept by Ravetz, he’s not saying Ravetz advocated ‘post-normal’ science. As a philosopher of science, he observed that this is what has been occurring, and described the processes which had brought it about.

anon (21:31:33) :
WRT to the issue of this page, we lay people have no clue what you’re all talking about other than something is upside down.
Try these articles on Climate Audithttp://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=71

Uh-oh. On the BBC site I’ve just seen the picture of Mann with his collection of sliced tree trunks. What’s the betting that if there’s a cold winter in his area he’ll burn that wood in his fire place ‘by accident’, just as an FOI request comes in.
Odds, anyone?

Steven Mosher
I finally see a response to a topic I raised naively a year ago. At first, (or third) blush, the correlation of the proxies to a purportedly definitive let alone accurate (to .01C) value is absurd; how can intelligent people accept a premise that defies logic (or even intuition) ? I posted long analyses of dozens of factors on tree growth, and while admittedly temperature is critical, the short cycle of growth of these trees wacks any intelligent isolation of one basis. Pah!
will

> tallbloke (22:50:03) :
> Try these articles on Climate Audit
> http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=71
Thanks, however I really do not have the capacity to decipher all that and then come to an “aha moment” to understand the problem here. To help us lay people what is needed is a simple 1, 2, 3 presentation:
Step 1: Graph of what was done with Big Red Arrow pointing at the upside down data.
Step 2: Graph of correct way to use the data.
Step 3: 1 para description of the quantified difference the error made (warming instead of cooling, 50% more warming than there should be 50% less cooling than there should be etc.)
I appreciate that to get to that all the hard work that you folks analyzing Mann’s rubbish needs to be done, but then you really need to distill it down to the above each time so we “get it” — and more importantly decision makers “get it” too and can take action, ask pointed questions and hold people accountable too (if they decide to act).
Thanks

Climategate
Let’s see:
a) subverting the peer review process
b) stacking the UN IPCC
c) obstruction of the Freedom on Information Act
d) breach of university and state ethics codes
… and we haven’t even talked about the data yet.
Climate Science – the new Ponzi scheme!
p.s. – Is this what Science is all about? Meet the new boss (science), same as the old boss (religion). When are they issuing funny hats to scientists?
p.p.s. – Who needs Wall Street when you have Science?

wasn’t it determined that the upside down series in the last paper had no effect on the reconstrution when it was turned up the right way? I don’t see why it has to be included in that case, but I also don’t see why it matters if it doesn’t alter the results

…What at first glance appears like a 180° turn, is on the second view just new attempt in making the MWP appear like a local event: The Medieval period is found to display warmth that matches or exceeds that of the past decade in some regions, but which falls well below recent levels globally.
…
To help you drawing your own conclusions, some temperature records showing the existence of a warmer than today medieval period are displayed in the following map…

Btw, the instrument record goes straight up till 2006. In the supplemental information Mann writes

Years 1850-2006 are the PC-filtered instrumental data(retaining 7 PCs)

Is that a 7 year running mean, or what kind of trick did Mann use this time to hide the decline?

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on WUWT. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. This notice is required by recently enacted EU GDPR rules, and since WUWT is a globally read website, we need to keep the bureaucrats off our case!OkPrivacy policy